The Singapore Grand Prix has always been a race where strategy plays a large part in the result and this year was no different. Partly this is because there is usually a safety car to work around, which can change the game as it did this year. Partly it’s because this is a race where cars which are more gentle on their tyres can take advantage and do one less pit stop than their rivals. And with a stop taking almost 30 seconds, that’s a big advantage.

The safety car presented an opportunity for some and a risk for others. Mercedes didn’t take the risk and lost out to Ferrari and Lotus. Other teams did try to take the opportunity of pitting under the safety car and tried to reach the end of the race, over 30 laps, on a single set of tyres, but they either lost performance or had to pit again before the end.

In fact the safety car spoiled the race in many ways, although it did set up an exciting finish, as cars that gambled on pitting under the safety car, had to struggle to the end on the tyres while others on fresher tyres came through the field.

Pre race expectations

This race was set up in a fascinating way thanks to the performance difference between the two Pirelli tyre compounds; medium and supersoft. It was a significant margin; some teams were seeing two seconds a lap of difference in pace. This meant that a three stop strategy looked to be 12 seconds faster than two stops. But if there were to be a safety car this would offer teams a chance to switch strategy and go for two, depending on where it fell.

Vettel thinking strategically already in qualifying

Sebastian Vettel took a strategy gamble on Saturday; opting not to do a final run in qualifying to save a new set of supersoft tyres for the race. All the indications were that the supersoft would be the faster race tyre and that without a safety car, teams would need to be prepared to do three stops, meaning four stints in total, of which three would be on supersoft.

Having a new set would mean Vettel could have superior pace at a key point in the race or if he was under pressure and forced into stopping earlier than ideal to avoid an undercut, he could put on a new set of tyres which would give him the pace to get out of trouble. In the end he didn’t need to worry; his pace advantage was so significant that even with a safety car cutting down his lead, he still had a huge margin over his rivals. And in any case the safety car made it a two stop race for everyone.

But it was an interesting moment. To lose pole and start from the dirty side of the grid wouldn’t have been worth having a new set of tyres for. Red Bull took the risk because they didn’t believe anyone would get close to beating Vettel’s time and they were lucky that Rosberg was 9/100ths of a second slower, rather than faster on his final run.

Much has been made of Vettel having a fastest race lap, one second faster than the next best car, but this isn’t as simple or meaningful as it looks. Vettel put on a new set of supersofts on lap 44 and two laps later set the fastest time of the race. His main rivals were not in a position to challenge that because they were all tyre saving in the final 20 laps of the race. Adrian Sutil had the second fastest race lap, while the second fastest car last weekend, Nico Rosberg’s Mercedes, put on a new set of mediums on lap 41 – which were two seconds a lap slower than the supersofts – and set his fastest lap of the race on lap 51, two seconds slower than Vettel’s.

How could Rosberg have beaten Alonso and Raikkonen?

The key to Fernando Alonso and Kimi Raikkonen getting onto the podium was that the Ferrari and Lotus teams had confidence that they could get to the finish on a set of medium tyres should the safety car be deployed around lap 25. This was based on knowledge gained from Friday practice, where almost 4,000kms of running was done by the field, with 26 laps the most anyone managed on a set of mediums.

Mercedes did not have that confidence and the strategy team maintains that they would more likely have ended up like the McLaren drivers, losing performance and track positions at the end, than the Ferrari and Lotus cars.

Ferrari had to take the risk, there was nothing to lose from a championship point of view. If Alonso had followed the Mercedes strategy he would have finished behind Rosberg. By pitting under the safety car he gave himself a shot at second place and it worked, meaning that at least he was able to minimise the championship points loss to Vettel.

For Rosberg, who stayed out when the safety car was deployed on lap 25 along with Vettel, Webber and Hamilton, his nine second lead over Alonso was lost. It was only four seconds when Rosberg made his second stop on lap 41 and lost track position to both Alonso and Raikkonen.

Complicating matters further Rosberg got some discarded tyre rubber jammed in his front wing and this hurt the aerodynamic performance of the Mercedes and affected tyre performance. So even if he had decided to gamble on a stop under the safety car, he would have been forced to stop again before the end of the race.

The risk for Alonso and Raikkonen was that they would be caught by cars like Rosberg and Webber who would be on new tyres In the final 20 laps. Rosberg had the pace to catch them but lost time in traffic (Hulkenberg and Gutierrez) when they were on fresh tyres and that saved Alonso and Raikkonen.

If they had pitted Rosberg under the safety car he would have lost a place to Webber but would have still been ahead of Alonso with a fresh set of tyres. To lose one place for a fresh set may have been worth it. Without the rubber getting stuck in the front wing, Rosberg would have been able to build a gap to Raikkonen, so that he could pit again, if needed, and still challenge the Finn for third place before the flag, especially as Raikkonen lost time behind Button towards the end.

But with the poor pace in the second stint from having rubber in his wing, it wouldn’t have made any difference.

Mercedes were beaten by two cars whose strength has been making the tyres last.

Di Resta loses a good result
Force India and Paul di Resta have a strong history at Singapore; last year he finished fourth and in 2011 he was sixth, in both cases using innovative strategy.

This year he was at it again. Although he qualified a disappointing 17th on the grid, he tried an ambitious two stop strategy with two stints on new supersoft tyres and the stops well balanced out for the fastest race time. He pulled off a 22 lap first stint on supersoft, the longest any driver managed. The Force India strategists managed to drop him back out into clear air with an eight second gap to the car in front, so he was motoring when the safety car came out at the end of lap 24.

Because he was targeting a two stop strategy the safety car actually worked against him, because it gave many other cars a chance to do two stops as well. Some of them ran into trouble trying to get to the end on the same set of tyres having pitted on lap 25, drivers like Button, Perez and Hulkenberg and these were picked off by the cars with the more evenly spaced stop plan in the closing laps. Di Resta had track position ahead of Massa after his second stop and thus was headed for sixth place, which would have maintained a strong record on this track. But he went off the circuit seven laps from the end.

The UBS Race Strategy Briefing is written by James Allen with input and data from some of the F1 team strategists and from Pirelli.

Race History, provided by Williams F1 team

The orange band is the safety car period. Note how Rosberg’s slow pace after that caused the field to bunch up behind. Had he been able to attack on fresh tyres he might have been able to pit and challenge Raikkonen and possible Alonso in the closing stages, as their tyres faded. But this would have required him passing Webber and possibly Hamilton. On balance that may have been difficult. Mercedes played it safe and got a result.

It wasn’t just about tyres lasting, though, it was also about the circuit they were making them last on. On most other circuits it would not have mattered if ALO and RAI made the tyres last. The faster cars at the end, such as the Mercedes and Webber, made slow progress through the field because of the nature of the circuit offering few opportunities for even faster cars to pass slower cars. On many other circuits the faster cars would have caught and passed much quicker. I’m sire the strategists for ALO and RAI would have taken this into account as well.

As a side note, I simply to not understand why people rave about Singapore and Monaco. I am totally fed up with the pundits cooing over light displays, casinos and infiniti pools. Who gives a monkey’s? These races are and always will be dull and surely THAT’s what matters? When clearly faster cars get stuck behind clearly slower cars (even with both DRS and KERS) for ten laps it ceases to be racing on many levels. Singapore is all style over substance and I don’t care how amazing the hotel looks under the lights – I want to see these cars RACE on a decent track please. I’m sure the corporate fat cats love their jollies to Monaco and Singapore but fans of RACING are left a bit bewildered by the whole thing.

Wayne, I’m not a big fan of any street circuit course, they are simply too confining. Monaco $ Singapore perhaps the prime example of tight street courses that make it extremely hard to overtake unless your car is much faster then the car in front. But I believe if you ask the drivers they would tell you they love the races held there, of course they are not fans having to endure the frustration of their favorite driver not being able to get around a driver they earthier don’t like or hate. I believe the drivers like the races at Monaco & Singapore for the away from the track excitement. Remember the vast majority of them are under 35 and most like to party with their friends when there’re not driving. Don’t get me wrong, the drivers are totally focused on hteir job, but away from the track these to venues are simply incredible, one has to have been to those cities to fully appreciate what I’m writing here. Bottom line, a real fast car on these two tracks almost always wins because they usually qualify first and can dominate on these tight circuits far more then the dedicated F1 circuits.

Have never experienced either Monaco or Singapore, so I can’t argue that very weel made point with you. But the TV audience is an order of magnitude larger than the local audince and I’d hope most of that audience is more interested in the racing than the light display and aftershow party.

People go on and on about Monaco’s history but it’s mostly a history of monotony in terms of racing. Although I’m sure it’s fab for the super rich playboys and girls who hang out on the yaughts (I happily admit that I wish I was one fo them). It’s quite telling baout modern F1 that the 2 most boring circuits of the year are referred to as the old and new jewels in F1′s crown – all style over substance.

“the only changes that were permitted were in the rules for future seasons”

Except in 2003, when Michelin (Kimi and Montoya) were on for a fight with Schumi for the championship in tyres that were deemed ok for ages. Then…a cunning mid-season change forced a Michelin tyre change which then gave an unfoar advantage and the championship to Schumi-Bridgestone.
Think Ferrari went on after this race to win quite a few races in a row that season and next.

VET is a cyborg sent back from a dystopian future to change the past. They are preparing the way for monopolies and word domination by getting us used to it now, here, in our time. It’s obvious when you think about it.

That closes the loop with my other point that Vettel owes Webber a win before season is out.

Perfect scenario.

Vettel-Webber running 1-2, Vetter has an “alternator problem” Webber inherits P1, it’s all “in the family” and two issues are solved. Points gap by Alonso to Vettel is reduced, Vettel pays back Webber for Malaysia.

I am sorry but struggle to get the point here. There were so many cases in F1 when strategy worked against the interest of a given team. So to put in “ifs” it would be equally useless as if we say; If FIA/BE/Pirelli didn’t revert to 2012 tire spec most likely RBR wouldn’t be so dominant in 2nd half of this season thus giving far greater opportunity to Lotus, Ferrari, Force India in this championship.

Besides the point. There were other people apart from “t[mod]” who finished weekend on the top podium. Remember last season 2012 ? As the things are developing right now he is not going to climb down from the top podium till the end of the Championship. It isn’t trough his own fault but BE/FIA/Pirelli made this possible and of course internal RBR affairs which stinks very, very, much. So when they say that both their drivers are equal we at least know that is a lots of rubbish. Poor Ricardo, they are going to destroy him to. Probably that’s why they get booed lately

Doesn’t matter, the battle would have been alot closer now, Pirelli actually warned us for this scenario. Lotus and Ferrari their chances were blown with the new tyres and Merc just doesn’t seem to care that much about 2013.

Red Bull were just as dominant on the old tires. It was Mclaren, Merc and Ferrari that had issues with those tires delaminating remember. After Silverstone it was simply unacceptable to go on without the changes Pirelli made.

Unless of course Ferrari were happy with the increased risk to driver safety for arguably no increase in performance.

Red Bull is simply the best overall package this season and have developed the car much more effectively than their rivals. The tire change has had minimal impact on that.

Kart race – Not sure if you were following all the social media bashing of Pirelli right after the Silverstone race, but Pirelli was taking a beating. Let’s get some facts about the tire situation completely clear. There were two significant reason why Pirelli decided to revert back to the 2012 construction, mainly it was the change in the tires belt package, from the 2013 Steel Belts, to the 2012 Kevlar belts. And the important reason was neither Pirelli nor the FIA could completely in force the tire switching on the rear tires. Switching the tire from left to right caused a huge issue internally of the tire. Rotating a Steel Belt package when that package in an asymmetrical one is very dangerous, which can and did enhance the probability of the tread and belt separating from the carcass. As long as the teams didn’t on their own decide to switch the RR to the LR much of the tire issues would have likely not have occurred. Hence Pirelli made the decision with I’m sure the FIA’s and teams approval back to the 2012 Kevlar Belt package. I assure you it was not in anyway directed to help any particular race team. Each team has the technical ability to set pup their car and to,figure out what setup would be best for each type tire and circuit. Look at the priority Mercedes places on qualifying setup, they’ve taken a lot of pole positions, sometimes both cars start side by side. Look at what Lotus has done figuring out how to set their cars up for long runs and still archive excellent tire wear, where other teams just can’t seem to do what they do. I believe if you ask the drivers they would tell you they really prefer the Kevlar Belted tires Vs the asymmetrical Steel Belt ones.

All what you saying is the following: FIA/BE/Pirelli have no idea what they are doing. FIA & BE for not allowing sufficient testing before the tire format became official and given to the teams to understand the rubber. Pirelli for accepting to be accessory in committing technical/ sporting crime. Whether or not there was no intention of favoring one over the other that unfortunately happen and those who are saying now that Lotus and Ferrari were the only one having tire problems(delamination) are either having very short memory or believe that everyone else is suffering a complete loss of the memory. As we all know certain tire construction will suit one kind of suspension, down force, loads, driving stiles and vice versa. Obviously, as expected, Kevlar carcass suits RBR the best. I do not even want to go there discussing that no one should be allowed to abuse components by using them in un prescribed manner. LH side on the RH and opposite. For those kind infringements technical stewards should serve severe penalties, which in the end it is FIA yet again. Anyhow FIA themselves created this mess and as it is ain’t going to go away any time soon. FIA is shortchanging all of us, so if they loose spectatorship tough luck.

KARTRACE – Wow lots of blame for just about everyone. I can’t really speak for the FIA, or BE, but as for Pirelli I can assure you and anyone else that reads this, that Pirelli is obligated by contract to follow the FIA tire regulations. To say that they are an accessory in some kind of technical sporting crime is totally foolish to write. I don’t believe it will do any good to explain why Pirelli decided to go back to their 2012 tire construction, but I’ll try one more time to explain why they changed from the 2011 & 2012 construction of Kevlar Belts, not carcass or Steel Belts. The only complaints the first two seasons with the Pirelli F1 tire was that they take a little to long to warm up, in others words heating them up for maximum grip took a little to long. Pirelli listening to the drivers, decided to change the belt package to the conventional Steel Belts, with an added feature of making the Steel Belts asymmetrical. In other wards the enteral construction of the tire had a slightly thinker belt on the of the outside tread edges. The outer right side and the outer left sides were a little stronger because of the stress the outside edges have to endure. Unfortunately at Silverstone the practice of switching the L and R tires, combined with the excessive negative camber, improper air pressure of and aggressive curbs at the Silverstone circuit set up a combination that on 4 deferent cars the tires sustained cuts on the right rear tires and came apart. Add to that, the tire that was designed to rotate one way was being forced to rotate the other direction. The heat that builds up due to this was simply to much of a burden for the tire. Each tire is clearly marked RR, LR, RF LF. Pirelli did stress that they do not recommend switching the rear tires, but the teams decided for several reasons of their own to switch them anyway. So after a very carful investigation Pirelli decided that they would return to the Kevlar Belts Package, which by the way were never an asymmetrical construction type. Remember we are talking about BELTS not CARCASSES, and there is no way that Pirelli would risk their reputation as to favor any F1 team. I do totally agree that the FIA and F1 need to I force the regulations whether tire or other regulation. It’s not Pirelli’s responsibility to police the teams, but Pirelli does at least try and educate and recommend how their tires should be used. In closing I also must remind you that Pirelli has been involved in F1 racing since 1950 and have been instrumental in many technical innovations that have not only benefitted racing, but also the more common type tire that we use in our everyday life.

@ Deano, thanks for your explanations. I am not blaming evrione as you put it, just those who are involved. Being said that we could discuss also a pre Pirelli era in F1. When we are talking about that then we may not skip and tell that those problems never happen when Bridgestone was looking after rubber in F1. And why is that ? must be there is the rason. And for one reason or other you failed Deano to reveal that. Alegedly the reason was request by FIA/BE, or whoever it was, to produce “unperictable” tires. So here we go. We have Pirelli tires that were absolutely unpredictable. Yes for sure Pirreli wouldn’t favor any team, but it turnet other way round. Teams which could handle/manage steel belted tires are now punished and they are struggling. I agree with you that you are not the policeman of F1 but surely it is Pirellis paramount interest that somone does police utilisation of your product as the product reputaion is on the block. After performance issues and so many tire failures who would dare today to put Pirellis on their Porches, Lambos ….. or any other car for that matter ? Pretending as if everithing was in order and playing innocent, hands washing, wouldn’t help with product quality public perception, confidence. Somone should’ve thought of that.

Rob, well after reading my comments I have to agree, I will try harder on any future posts. Sometimes, at least for me, a learning curve typing on my I Pad and trying to put my thoughts down in the post, is not easy. I’m not going to blame it on my age because I don’t want to offend others that are in the upper side of their 60′s. I do appreciate your comment and as I said I will try and do a better job on my next post, which I’m doing right now. Have a food weekend.

RBR would still have come up with the venturi-effect diffuser, and the result would’ve been the same, no matter the tires.

Or as some on here seem to think, ↑when Vettel told Newey to try making the last bit of the outer channel of the diffuser turn sharply outward, and Newey finally relented, then they took a big step up in performance. ;-D

Love it, a natural progression from the exhaust blown diffuser that Seb previously created while he took a break from designing the Renault engine and creating a rubber compound that wouldn’t delaminate.

Your comment is so off the mark, RBR and Pirelli are in no way in some type of secret relationship, nor was Bridgestone and Ferrari when Schumacher was driving for them. In the world we live in no company can risk their reputation, nor their integrity, by playing favorites with one of the 11 F1 teams. If you want to learn a little more about tires just read my recent post that starts Kart race.

Really?
My number one rule in business is –
“NEVER trust that people will do what is in their own best interests”
Learned from years of banging my head against the wall. People are not logical creatures.

James, do you think the Red Bull / Inifiniti partnership is allowing RBR to gain more of an advantage and control over their Renault engines (compared to other Renault teams)?

It seems to me that with this partnership, RBR are allowed to (illegally??) fiddle with the engine, gearboxes and this might be where they are gaining huge advantage (but also suffering from incessant gearbox related issues).

This sort of harks back to blown diffusers and engine mappings (now illegal) which RBR were famous for doing to give them more downforce etc.

Not sure whether this is even possible with the standardised ECU??

The chronic gearbox related issues RBR suffers from makes me think this is where some of their dominance is coming from – because other Renault teams are not suffering the same sort of issues.

I’ve kind of noticed a few cars, not just renault powered ones, down-shifting rather quickly than I thought physically possible. James, can you see/investigate whether teams have worked out how to almost semi-automatically downshift? Or do you know what they’re doing to give this impression?

Yip. Pirelli ran scared of Dr Helmut and buckled in, while at the same time they tried to give his rivals Merc an advantage with a sneaky secret test. They would have done better to bring the right tyre instead.

You can’t count on Rosberg to deliver incredible drives and unexpected podiums/wins, that’s exactly what Alonso and Raikkonen can do (and why Hamilton was brought in). But you can count on him to more or less show where the car belongs.

The RB9 was a class apart, but there wasn’t much between the Mercedes, Ferrari and Lotus. The better drivers were able to take gambles and profit on them. Heck, Rosberg had to be spurred over the radio to actually push the car…

Yes, but the point is that Hamilton does deliver incredible drives, even if occassionally he has an off day. (Just as every driver does.)

Hamilton finished behind Rosberg in Monza, but that was because of his mistake in Qualifying. He was miles quicker than Rosberg in the race and had no trouble outpacing him for ten laps or so on tires that were ten laps older.

I think on one-lap pace, Rosberg can definitely hang with Hamilton. He has shown that. But when it comes to race performances, Hamilton is just in a different class. Hell, even in Singapore, Hamilton started three positions behind Rosberg and ended the race one position behind him.

True, but im afraid rosberg is just such a conservative driver, if he gets pole he can just disappear, but generally if he qualifies 5th or 6th he just stays there, honestly can you remember a daring risky rosberg move? Look at Hungary there is no way he would have made the moves Hamilton made on webber, its not in his racing dna..

The issue I have with your Rosberg analysis is that it makes the assumption that all other variables of the race remain the same. Which as we know is never the case in F1 – teams and drivers react to exactly what is going on at any given moment of the race.

Maybe this is a bit of an extreme example of what I’m saying, but take the pitstop window – when a driver pits, often those around him will pit immediately afterwards to avoid the undercut, your analysis is almost like theorising “If driver x didn’t stop, he would have gained the track position that those who did stop”, but the problem is those other cars would not have/may not have stopped if driver x had not done so in the first place.

So what I’m getting at is that you state, for example, that Rosberg could (in your scenario of him using ALO and RAI’s strategy) “challenge the Finn for third place before the flag, especially as Raikkonen lost time behind Button towards the end.”, but Raikkonen was responding to a fast approaching Webber, knowing he *had* to pass Webber or risk the certainty of being caught. If this had been Rosberg instead, Raikkonen would have simply done the same thing, just earlier/whenever the realisation set in.

Think I fumbled my way through that a bit, but hopefully you understand what I”m saying.

Alonso definitely benefited from the SC, 2 places and maybe 3 depending on this and that.

Rosberg lost 2 places because of it and Hamilton won 1 place because of it. They should have pitted Rosberg (not Hamilton because he benefited from it) and he could have fought with Alonso and definitely have 3rd.

If Rosberg pits he is 4th behind Webber and Hamilton. The team then has to decide whether to try to go to the end or stop again. In Mercedes’ view it wouldn’t have made it – so if di Resta and Grosjean had finished that would have been 9th at best. To stop again it means Rosberg is directly racing Hamilton and Webber with one stop left each and a track position disadvantage. Unless Rosberg can pass both – not at all a certainty – the undercut would have kept him behind Hamilton at the end of the race. Strategically, if the team was being honest, Hamilton will have been told he’s racing Rosberg for position. So there’s no need to let him by easily.

Unless you could get home from ~lap 28 or whenever the saftey car might be first anticipated to come in, there was no benefit in stopping again as the tyres were still quite fresh and track position and the undercut would have kep anyone who didn’t stop under the safety car ahead.

Hey Martin – I know hindsights a wonderful thing – but if Ross Brawn had known that Alonso and the rest of the field were going to pit I think he could have played out the following strategy:
- pit Rosberg onto super softs
- have Hamilton stay out
- Rosberg returns to track behind Hamilton but in front of Alonso and the rest of the field
- when the race restarts Hamilton lets Rosberg by to run ahead on the super softs
- Hamilton drops back to hold up the field
- Rosberg pits for his last set of tyres and emerges in front of Hamilton
- Rosberg let’s Hamilton by and holds up the field
- Hamilton pits and emerges somewhere around or possibly ahead of Alonso and Kimi

If we only make that change, then Webber would have been in second. So at that point Mercedes has just conceded second to Webber by committing to three stops and throwing away 30 seconds.

Webber’s preference was for the Medium tyre and both Mercedes cars chose to go onto it too, unlike Grosjean and the McLarens. If we consider Button’s comment about setting the car up to maximise performance on the Supersoft then the reverse may have been applicable with the Mercedes (or it may not be applicable for the Mercedes), then the performance over the stint may not have been faster on the Supersofts than the Mediums. The two second performance margin applied over one lap, but we saw with Massa that he chose to go back to the medium for his final stint after getting supersofts under the safety car.

Judging on race performances this year, I doubt Rosberg could have pulled off what Vettel did and make up a large amount of time (1 second per lap rather than 2 in Vettel’s case). I’d give Hamilton a bit more of a chance as with the exception of Spain he’s always looked as fast or faster than Rosberg in the race, but my feeling is that the Singapore spec Red Bull with Vettel’s feel for both tyres was in a league of its own.

To go into your scenario a little further, while I’m sure Hamilton would have the car placement skills to find ways of making a slow wide Mercedes that DRS couldn’t defeat, I suspect he would object to the idea of trying to win that way. Monaco was different as Mercedes was running each car in the optimal way – what you’ve proposed is an extreme version of using an out-of-position car. It is certainly plausible, but I doubt either driver would want to do it.

The other part is question for Mercedes is that Alonso and less so Grosjean, were taking a significant risk. Ferrari knew that Massa wasn’t good enough to do what Alonso did. Why weaken your position just because your oponent has taken a major gamble?

From a team’s perspective, they will be evaluating all the time what is the fastest way home from where they are. There will be the estimated race time on an open track and then how much time is lost in traffic. By stopping under safety car that might allow a traffic-free window to open up that would not be there by not stopping, but otherwise the track position advantage of being second and the undercut advantage for every lap the driver is on fresher tyres in the last stint tends to produce a large gain.

I really believe that ignoring your blocking strategy, Mercedes did the right thing given the performance limitations of the car.

Alonso is the main beneficiary whenever someone in front has a misfortune. In this case when someone behind him had a problem he was the main beneficiary. Kimi got stuck behind Button. Otherwise things would have been different.

They couldn’t pit Rosberg because Merc is a bit harder on the tyres according to the data they had. Rosberg was upset but that is the fact and he would have had to come again for new tyres. What Merc didn’t expect is, Alonso and Kimi to go to the end with those tyres.

From the strategy report, it appears Vettel’s Red Bull had all bases covered so basically all he had to do was make sure he was in the lead by the end of the first lap and it would have been game over.

It’s always mind blowing seeing Vettel pull ahead at the start of a race like he has got less fuel or something.

After the first pitstops, it was looking like Di Resta was going to lose Alonso a podium place as Webber and Grosjean begun breathing down his neck but then the race got turned on it’s head.

Luckily for Lotus and Ferrari they have easy tyre action and so were able to make it till the end but it appears Alonso didn’t think he would make it seeing as he said 2nd place felt as good as a win.

As for Mercedes, sure the safety car didn’t work out in Rosberg’s favour but considering Rosberg’s front wing debris issue, the team should have taken a chance with Lewis by pitting him during the safety car because not only is Lewis among the best defenders but on his day, he can make the tyres last with the best of them.

Besides, even if the tyres were to go off, the only competition he would have to worry about would have been in the same boat such as the Mclarens and Hulkenburg.

Anyway Mercedes can’t be too disheartened because they got two free places after Grosjean and Webber’s retirements but interestingly, Rosberg has only been on the podium twice this season >>> that is only the races he won.

Regards Webber, he was on fire and on course for a good result. Not only did he jump Rosberg in the pits thanks to faster first stop but he was also making in roads on Alonso before the safety car came out.

But as usual, good fortune didn’t smile his way and to rub salt in the wound, gets a 10 place grid penalty for the next race.

Webber was only just going to catch Raikkonen at the rate he was going. Alonso was safe. Raikkonen was still getting out of corners pretty well, so I suspect 4th was it for Webber.

It wasn’t clear to me when Rosberg got his front wing debris problem – under the safety car, when there is a tendency for cars to run off line ahead of him seems most likely. Therefore too late for Hamilton to do a stop.

As far as Hamilton stopping, it puts him stuck behind Grospean for the race – if he gets racey his tyres definitely won’t last. As to his tyre saving heroics, Barcelona in 2012 with the best car is a unique case in his F1 career really. Normally in his career he has done stints of a good length as faster than his team mates post Alonso rather than longer stints. He has the odd stint per year when he doesn’t judge it right.

It’s true about Vettel being so good at the start. Reminded me of Kimi in his strong McLaren years.

Monaco 2005 is I guess a good example to point out. I agree different rules same set of tyres all through the GP and everything.

But we had a totally different type of quali system with Aggregates! Kimi had the quickest car in the weekend like Vettel did and put in a storm-er of a lap at the first Q session on Saturday allowing him to put a little bit more fuel for the second Q session on Sunday morning. He got pole but with more fuel onboard than Alonso in p2. He was not that great off the line Alonso managed to have a look at him into the first corner but Kimi managed to keep the McLaren in front. Same as what happened with Vettel in Singapore. But Kimi slightly poor getaway was due to more fuel. Then, even with more fuel onboard, he just pulled away. There was a safety car in that GP too I remember. Just like Vettel he managed to pull away yet again to get a gap to insure he never lost his lead after his pit-stop.

My memory is a bit shaky about the 2005 Monaco GP so I might be missing something. Feel free to correct me if I’ve missed out something here. But all in all when I was watching Vettel I was reminded of what Kimi did. That to me, is something nice to see.

Interesting to get your views on the Webber penalty. I’m interested that he is not happy but feel he has missed the point. Where Alonso stopped and where he got on were basically round a blind bend and on the racing line and if Alonso had stopped away from the racing line and not in a blind spot there would have been no penalty?

It would be interesting to know if Webber actually technically left the track, he says he never even spoke to a marshall.

He was given the penalty for the lift back, I think we shouldn’t be under any illusions there despite what the official infringement was. The FIA are particularly acute with the post race process for some reason, I suspect to maintain the TV audience.

I don’t think they have realised that fans find the post race stuff exciting, like the old Valentino Rossi celebrations that always peaked interest post race to see what he would come up with each time.

Amazingly F1 is in the situation of sanctioning Alonso and Webber more than Piquet ever got for deliberately crashing his car at the same circuit!!!

I think the short answer there is “No”. Given the safety car coming when it did, Rosberg did as well as he could have. We can always speculate about what would have happened “if” some variable in a race had been different but it looked at the time, and still looks in retrospect, as if Mercedes made the right call.

Mercedes got the SC call correct. What they didn’t get right was the final stint. Supersofts were the way to go, particularly for LH having gone longer on the mediums in the middle stint. They should have rolled the dice with at least one of them at the end.

I don’t think NR could have done lap 25 to lap 61 on the medium tyres. He came in on lap 15 for mediums and lasted until 41. His team mate [notorious for eating rubber] got 2 more laps out of his mediums in the middle stint. I know the SC would have helped prolong the tyre’s life but NR likes rubber [even] more than LH!

The question is, did Mercedes have an extra set of new supersoft? If the answer is no, the used supersoft would not have lasted until the end of the race. We know Vettel stayed out behind the SC because he did have those extra supersoft. But I don´t know about everyone else

He was two seconds a lap faster *at times*, would be the best way to put it. One of those times was the opening two laps of the race. That’s just a characteristic of Vettel though, he’s always outstanding in the first laps on cold tyres. It’s as common an occurrence as Alonso making up four positions by the first corner.

I don’t believe any driver on the grid is worth 2 seconds a lap and I’m positive I would be able to find a lot of people to agree with me. Other times he’s about 1-1.5 seconds/lap quicker in the opening stages. The driver has his share in this performance, but Vettel is not God Steve :D.

Exactly. Everyone in front were scampering to the opposite side which opened up a big gap for Alonso. Strangely no one was covering Alonso which gave him enough space. But we all know Ferraris have the best starts and it is one of the best cars on the grid.

I agree, his ‘amazing’ starts are just down to the ferrari being the best starting car, they have good launch, massa even gets good starts. I was also surprised how he could not overtake Di Resta on worn tyres

“But on track he couldn’t overtake anyone; not even di Resta who was on worn tyres”.

Guess it goes to show that that Ferrari didn’t even have the pace to outclass a Force India. So the first corner move was that much more crucial for “Formula 1′s resident escapologist Fernando Alonso” (disclaimer – phrase borrowed from Sky pundits JG & PG).

any comment on what would have been outcome if nico and Lewis ran super soft in final stint, i think lewis pitted lap 43 ish, seb vettel ran supersoft from lap 44. Obviously sebs supersofts were a new set so the mercs may have had to go a lap or 2 deeper before pitting.

The options would have been 2 seconds or more quicker than old primes, surely this would have been better as they would have cleared traffic faster and possibly put kimi and alonso under pressure to use thier tyres up sooner

I cant understand why they did not at least split the strategy eg put rosberg on the options and ham on the mediums, nico looked like he was holding lewis up toward the end

James of course Mercedes got it wrong with the strategy. Why would they not cover Alonso, Massa at the safety car ? (let alone Raikkonon who anyone could have guessed would come into play at the end). Its Kind of silly if you get virtually a free stop at lap 25 which is almost in the window of a 2nd stop anyway. It would be really interesting to know what was the condition of the used tyres Merc had left- perhaps this limited their options particularly the softs- but strategically I could never understand their position at the safety car.

Because you know that both Lotus and Ferrari cars are likely to try to go to the finish without stopping again. So you need to be sure that if you cover them you can either go to the finish yourself (doubtfurl for Mercedes) or open a gap big enough to stop again and challenge them to the finish.

Strategy has shown this year that the worse thing you can do is get caught between two strategies. That said, as the post points out they could have had a new set of tyres for the price of one track position (to Webber) so I would have been inclined to go for it with Rosberg.

It was hard for them to do with Rosberg, as he was ahead of Alonso. But if they had made the decision to pit Rosberg, and hope that Alonso and Webber would follow him in, then they could’ve used Rosberg to hold up the train to let Hamilton build a gap.

Interesting that Alonso, Hamilton and Massa took on used mediums for their last stint. Hamilton and Massa were pretty racy at the end there.

Actually Rosberg would have lost 2 positions James, to Webber and Hamilton…..Now Lewis could have been asked to give way but discounting that, there were a few more factors for Merc to not pit him.

There was an obvious threat of Romain Grosjean. Apart from some fine driving, Alonso got lucky because he could conserve his tyres behind Hamilton from lap 35, (Romain’s car trouble) to lap 43 (Hamilton pits). Romain had enough pace to trouble Alonso which prompted Merc to think he would pit again.

Rosberg (through his radio comm) was convinced Alonso would pit again that he even said he wanted to conserve his tyres to defend when Alonso came back at him with fresher tyres.

Now that said there was one outside chance for Merc, between lap 31 and 43 Rosberg averaged 1 min 52s (same as his average from lap 18 to lap 25) and Seb averaged low 1 min 50s, now the RBR was fast but as friday practice suggested it was a second fast but not by 2.5 seconds. So for some reason Rosberg held the field up.

This allowed seb to build the 28 seconds gap to Alonso. Now had Rosberg pushed it to the limit, Vettel would have come into traffic behind Alonso and that meant Alonso would have lost his tyre life trying to fight Seb tipping the scales in favour of Merc.

Now the only possible explanations to why Rosberg held the field after the Safety car period are 2.

One being the obvious, Vettel was so superior that it appeared to the viewers, Rosberg was holding the field (not the case as indicated by his pace from lap 18 to 25) fuel corrected lap times meant he should have averaged in mid 1 min 51s.

The other was, he was trying to prolong the middle stint so he would have enough life left in tyres to fight what he presumed an Alonso on a fresh set of tyres.

Somehow merc failed to spot any of it, least of it being to pit at least hamilton so as to chase Alonso.

Yeah, I thought the same thing that Mercedes had really stuffed the strategy. I felt really sorry for the Mercedes drivers because baring the strategy they looked so strong (minus Vettel).

Then I realised it always easy looking back, hindsight and all that. I also am happy that James has explained why Mercedes did what they did. Mercedes were kinda stuck and took the most logical strategy but one that wouldn’t result in a stellar result. Maybe Mercedes should have taken the gamble a greater risk for a greater reward.

Am I the only one who thinks Paul Di Resta could (or at least should) be under pressure to save his race seat for next season. I’m delving into my memory bank here for 2013 and all I can come up with is his excellent drive in Bahrain where he nearly bagged a podium.

However, looking at it simply,
-he has binned the car in the last two races, Singapore was very costly for the team with regards to 5th place in the constructors.
-he cant get himself out of Q1 at the moment, which given the pace of the Williams team is ridiculous. Bottas outqualified him in a car that could barely beat the Caterhams during the race.
-he got put in his place by a superior Hulkenberg at the end of last season once Nico got fully up to speed.
-he hasnt dominated Sutil despite Adrian being out for an entire season and his very evident averageness. Lets face it, Sutil is going nowhere in F1.

People are questioning why Paul is being overlooked by the big teams. So far as I can see, Hulkenberg is the leading young talent coming through. Bianchi has shown promise this season, as has Bottas. Any one of these three drivers have more potential than a Di Resta who has now had 3 full years in the sport and despite a couple of good showings here and there, really hasnt shown enough.

He is no longer a rookie, and his attitude to his team when things go wrong stinks frankly. Sooner or later Force India will lose patience and decide they need a better no.1 driver. I’m sure they regret not being able to keep Hulkenberg. Right now, I’d look to bag Massa and get back Hulkenbeg or bring in Bottas. Send Di Resta and Sutil packing. That McLaren has been a dog of a car for most of the season and the two FI drivers havent got the job done. Simple as in my opinion. Anyone agree?

I’d agree that Hulkenberg is the better of the two, but I don’t think di Resta is as bad as you say. He’s not the next Senna, but never was he claimed to be. He’s a good professional driver, who generally speaking gets a fairly good result out of the car he’s given and occasionally gets a great result. I do think his chance at a ‘top team’ has passed (in a Hamilton-stayed-at-McLaren scenario I’m sure he’d have slotted into Mercedes quite easily, and he’d have been a good no.2 choice for Ferrari had they wanted that option) but I don’t think he’s in danger of losing his seat (finances permitting) at Force India. He seems to let his head drop a bit during the season, but I don’t think his moans about the team were out of order after they kept stuffing his qualifying chances several races on the trot. Really, di Resta and Sutil have a hard job proving anything because if you’re in a better car, you have a better opportunity to get a standout result, while in a lesser car even a pretty meaningless result (like say a Caterham getting to Q2, or finishing 11th) gets a lot of attention. Di Resta and Sutil typically do a good job most races, but its easy to dismiss that as being “meh, Force India’s a pretty good team”. I’d suggest di Resta’s general level of consistency over the course of his career suggests he’s by and large done as well as any driver might. Sure there are always mistakes, but that happens.

Suggesting he be replaced by Massa is madness. Massa, on a like-for-like basis, is surely one of, if not THE, worst driver this season.

*Rayz*; Agree completely. So many times we read posts telling us how this driver or that driver is performing on the track. In our daily lives, far away from the world of F-1 however, advancement is often predicated on personalities more than job performance.

Following F-1 through the media, as most of us do, I can’t help but get the impression (correct me if I’m wrong, please) that Mr. Di Resta is lacking in communication skills when it comes to dealing with the public world of Formula One. One example is his telling the world of his interest in Ferrari’s open seat while struggling at Force India. Surely comments such as this can’t help but leave a negative impression with team principal Vijay Mallya and it’s Mr. Mallya he must impress if he desires to remain in the sport.

I think you mistake a driver “saying something” with a driver “answering a standard question”. If everyone were asked “are you interested in a better paid job that offers more success in your profession with a bigger and more succesful organisation”, most would say “yes”, and those who say “no” would be dismissed as lacking ambition or being too keen to not upset. I’m not a huge di Resta fan, nor do I think he’s a brilliant driver, but while he may attract more ‘hype’ in the UK than elsewhere (doesn’t any middling driver of any nationality?), and while he may not be especially photogenic or charismatic, I think you underestimate his abilities. Mercedes, Force India and the best F3 teams, I think, are qualified to judge a driver’s merits and so far he’s done pretty well for a lad from Midlothian. As I said above, I think Hulkenberg is better, but as much as you might not understand the appreciation for di Resta’s abilities in the British media, equally I don’t understand why he’s regarded so negatively elsewhere. He’s not brilliant, no, but he’s far from the worst driver on the grid – and clearly demonstrably so!

Yes, I fail to see the hype about Di Resta (which doesn’t even exist outside the UK). The bloke is quick, no question, but inconsistent, and has about as much charisma as a wet blanket. Who’d pay 50 quid for a t-shirt with his scowl on it? If he wants to keep a seat in F1, he needs to start respecting his team, and being thankful for the drive he has. It’s all right for hotheads Hamilton, Alonso, and Raikkonen to bag their teams – they’re world champions and have earned their place. Paul is still small fry and needs to show some class and up his game, or risk going down the road of F1 has-beens.

You’re very harsh on Di Resta – he could be the next Kimi! I might even buy a T-shirt with his scowl on it to be worn for the rest of this season if Kimi has a back operation and fails to show his miserable face at the races before 2014. I hope this will not happen, but if it does, Di Resta is pretty much my only hope if I want to see drivers suffering a bit. Alonso doesn’t seem to care anymore

And yes, Merc should have split their strategies and given a pit stop to one of the drivers during SC.

Consider it tough love. I’m not dissing the bloke. He IS fast. He HAS talent. But he’s not the complete PACKAGE to be worthy of a top seat… yet. In my opinion, he needs to lose the angsty attitude, put more faith in his team and work better with them to make his car as fast and drivable as possible, and to make his race strategies work. Improvements here will give him the confidence he needs to relax more and think clearly as a driver (leading to quicker laps and better race strategies, taking less risks) and blossom as a mature charismatic man, which he needs for the PR side of his job. Look at all the work Grosjean’s done this year to improve himself as a person – it’s now improving his racing and reputation immensely. Di Resta needs to swallow his pride and do the same thing if he wants a shot at a championship title.

I tend to agree. There was an interesting article about Vettel’s 2005 F3 team boss. Hamilton won almost everything that year. Sutil was his team mate and won a couple. Vettel was the leading rookie. Vettel’s team boss basically said Vettel and the team took a long time to catch up to the set up edge Hamilton had and for 2006 BMW switched Vettel to another team and that set him back again. In 2006 it was the same team as di Resta but different race engineering. Di Resta won the title that year. For some di Resta fans that is something to cling to. For me that is F3 and not F1. The F1 drivers are the best F1 drivers of the current cars in the world, i.e. it is highly qualified.

Some drivers stand out with a particular type of tyre (Heidfeld for me was one). For me di Resta is not as adaptable as Vettel, Alonso or Hamilton. Given that the teams cannot control what Pirelli does, di Resta is too much of a performance risk to take on – a 2/3 chance of him being average.

Comparing di Resta to Hulkenberg is potentially harsh – the guy has possibly the best lower class record of any driver in history. Rookie champion in the premier F3 class and GP2 plus winning A1GP for Germany, the guy is very strong. He also looks very handy in any F1 car to me. If I were McLaren I’d replace Perez with him. If I were Lotus I’d take him if Massa’s money wasn’t critical. Hulkenberg is too good for Force India in my opinion.

For me Sutil and di Resta are good enough to be justifiable to any mid field team, but in terms of the Toro Rosso test, I’d say di Resta is a bit better than Alguersuari, but not Red Bull worthy, so time to try someone new.

I second your opinion @Rayz. While @forzaminardi makes some very valid points on di Resta’s behalf, I think 3 yrs is a long enough time not to learn from your mistakes and be a consistent performer in a pretty solid SFI outfit. This goes for Sutil as well. This yr was their big chance to leapfrog McLaren; granted the tyre change hasn’t helped, but consistency in at least succefully finishing races should have been accomplished. Can’t blow it coming in 6th and binning the car – its just too costly in more ways than one.

I’d gladly switch them but alas I fear it’ll be status quo given the 2014 changes.

I don’t really want to get into a debate, but has di Resta not been consistent? OK, he made a bit of a costly mistake in Singapore, but what driver hasn’t binned a good result once or twice? I agree, 3 years is ample time to make a mark, and 3 years of reasonably competitive machinery is more than many drivers get, but honestly, by and large could you expect any driver to have done much more than consistently score points and come close to a podium or two in a Force India? It’s all very well saying “this was their chance to eclipse McLaren” but that forgets that Force India itself is a far smaller, less slick operation than McLaren, and that while the McLaren car is poor (for a McLaren) it’s probably ultimately a more competitive proposition than a Force India. The same arguments apply to Sutil really, and I’m less of a fan of him than I am di Resta. In the grand scheme of things, if they were both out in 2014 you’d say they’d had a better chance than most drivers, but on the other hand they’ve not done so badly to make replacement by someone else an easy decision. In retrospect, it would have been good to see Bianchi in the Force India, but by the same token choosing Sutil hasn’t been the ‘wrong’ decision.

Fair point. In my opinion though, he is no better than Kovalainen, Glock or Kobayashi…… and look where they are now. Careers that could have been. Paul will be lucky to survive another year of that standard of driving.

“It’s all very well saying “this was their chance to eclipse McLaren” but that forgets that Force India itself is a far smaller, less slick operation than McLaren, and that while the McLaren car is poor (for a McLaren) it’s probably ultimately a more competitive proposition than a Force India.”

There is no denying what you say it the above quote. For multiple reasons McLaren have underperformed hence presenting SFI with a rare opportunity to compete with them. Given this, had di Resta (and Sutil) truly stepped up and delivered good results, he’d have made a strong and justifyable case for a seat further up the grid. Instead he has had 4 DNFs in the last 4 races. You’ll agree Timing is critial in making and breaking F1 careers; lately he’s not been helping his case.

yeah I think de Resta is not good enough, he seems to think he deserves a top drive but he hasn’t shown enough. Always seems to have a lot of excuses and blames the team, he thinks he is better than he actually is. Will never go to a top team

For all this Vettel dominance jazz, if Vettel had a couple of sec lower gap, Alonso would have came out ahead of him at the last pit stop, when Vettel pitted on lap 44.

And it wouldn’t have been quite a given that SV would have passed FA on track in the last laps even with faster machinery and new tyres on this particular track + RB’s weaker performance on dirty air vs. clear air + perhaps another SC.

Just my 2c, shows the importance of right strategy & track position at turn 1. It was not such a straightforward win as media might lead you to believe.

It was tyre management of one set of rubber (by Alonso and Raikkonen) vs going hard for two sets (by Vettel). Given that one of SV’s sets was the super-soft, and that the SS was a much faster tyre, there was only one possible outcome. Ferrari/Alonso were never in it for the win and they knew, I think they were delighted to take second place. Which, to be fair, was a fantastic (if slightly lucky) result for them.

Doesn’t address what I was talking about … remove Vettel/RBR from the equation, and place Rosberg as the lead car doing a two-stop. Rosberg/Merc would’ve been screwed in the same circumstance, as he wouldn’t have been able to pull a big enough gap before the 2nd pitstop, even w/o rubber in the front wing.

The 4-sec gap he was able to build up could maybe have been a 9-10 sec lead w/o the rubber in the wing, putting him 15 sec’s behind after the stop with 18 laps to go, having to pass Perez, Button, and Kimi just to get to Alonso, nevermind pass him. Would never have happened.

No way. Vettel on new SSN and Ferrari on old mediums with inherent slower pace in the car itself — everything is stacked up against Ferrari in that duel. You just have to see how Webber, Rosberg and Raikkonen overtook the McLarens and RBR in the hands of Vettel with new tires would be a very easy overtake on Ferrari with old medium tires.

Spot on. I agree. However, what is fascinating is that Red Bull knew what Fernando was doing and unleased Sebastian to open the gap and once it was 30 sec they pitted him on lap 44.

I was watching Sky feed and even Martin Brundell and David Croft didn’t realize that Fernando won’t stop till the end until lap 46-47. Only after the Merc’s radio to Nico that Fernando is not stopping that they gave it a thought.

Are you serious? Although I would prefer to see FA beat SV any day of the week, SV had plenty in reserve. There is no way any car would have held him up for more than a lap out there. He demolished everyone.

I disagree. Vettel on new super softs would have breezed past all cars on used mediums….even alonso. Rebull appear to have legally got there blown diffuser back (James tweet to very interesting article). And unless others can replicate this they are now unstoppable.

From an engineering point if view the car is amazing. In Vettels hands on the super softs it was mind blowing!

You are right. This is a difficult circuit to overtake. That is why Vettel had problems in Hungary. Unless Alonso struggled with his tyres like Button did, Vettel may not have overtaken Alonso if had come behind him.

Well, I think this post just states what happened in the race, but that is a fact… for me the points are:
- Ferrari was not sure that the strategy would work;
- Lotus was not sure that the strategy would work;
- Mercedes was not sure that the strategy would work;
Rhe difderence was that Ferrari and Lotus tried, and Mercedes don’t. As in the end things worked for both, I think it could be worked for Mercedes too. And that is the whole point in my opinion.
Another thing is that Mercedes did the same for both drivers, and tjis is another thing that does not make any sense for me, as one driver is third in the WDC. I think Mercedes could have tried two different approaches and as Nico was racing Alonso, could have followed ferrari and cover the Spanish. If that worked, they woild be fine with one car, at least. If not, Hamilton would finish ahead of Alonso, and Mercedes would have a better understanding of the tyres and would have sire about things we today are in the field of “IF’s”.
One last point is that, again, LH was lapping fast around lap 43 when he pitted, if he could do that for more 3 or 4 laps, would be a matter of saving until the end. The tyres can be bad at the end, the portant is to have a good margin ao the others will not catch you. Kimi was not so good at the end, but the margin was “big”, and everyone that overtook JB had a hard time.. catch is one thing, pass is another.
Mercedes now has better tyre management than McLaren…

How can Nico “follow Alonso into the pits” when Alonso was behind him? The point is that Ross Brawn had to make a split second call. He didn’t know how many cars were going to pit under the safety car.

If Alonso pitted, and the rest of the field didn’t because they knew they could not get to the end – Alonso would have come out in 15th position and would lose time and tyres fighting his way back.

The point is that Alonso could gamble because he had nothing to lose – since he’s only interested in the WDC – not where he finishes.

Mercedes were protecting points and had given up on the WDC, and so took the more conservative decision.

I think Paul had a fair shot at F1 in a solid enough team to make some waves over the years. Frankly, he hasn’t. It’s time to move either down the field or out of F1 altogether to let a new emerging star have a strong midfield car opportunity.

But please…. NO blatantly obvious pay driver. Financial Backing is fine, but at least have a strong junior career. I was hoping Bianchi would get the Force India drive this year.

Thank you James once more for the great analysis, especially since it gives me the insight of a GP that I missed because I fall a sleep on my couch after the start. It seems that strategy alternatives were the core interest of this GP and makes me wonder if during the next GP booing podium is going to be the reason for giving a premature finish of a another me long sunday siesta.

Could you do a post on Vettel’s dominance these last few races. It appears again due to his oversteery driving style and being able to press the throttle very early on.. and so benefiting from better traction in the slow speed corners. It is in sector 3 that he had a huge advantage over Webber, and sector 3 has all the slow speed corners. May be yourself and Mark Gillan can make a post on this?

It is not depressing to see such a pace. RedBull are beatable. McLaren were on balance a faster car last year.

Could I request a piece on McLaren. No top drivers, hoping for Alonso, engine change in 2015 – just seems to me that for a historically very strong F1 team – they are going throughand will continue to go through an unusually long period of under performance.

Understandable if it’s Sauber – but given all the financial resources brought to bear – there must be immense pressures. I’m not sure how many investors can make financial investment plans with payouts over 2 years in the horizon? It’s a sadly impatient Internet speed business world these days – filled with CEOs with short term horizons and short term careers.

It would be interesting to know how the teams calculated the duration of the savety car phase.
I think it was out for at least one round too long, rather two.
So with a shorter SC time Mercedes tactic may have worked. More time to hunt on a prey that would have been more slower at the end.

James,
I think Rosberg was racing Grosjean and it would have been close. I do not think Mercedes thought they were racing Kimi.
Mercedes should have split their strategy to race Alonso and Grosjean, who were on different strategies. But would you tell Lewis who was behind Niko, that he could not push for the rest of the rest to ensure his tyres lasted until the end?
You are a brave man if you would!

James – Totally off topic, but do you have any insight on why Raikonnen chose Ferrari over Red Bull? From all media reports I have seen it is obvious now why he did not stay at Lotus, but in retrospect his choice now seems to have been whether to drive alongside a 2 times world champion or a 3/4 times one, neither of which has a reputation as a good team mate. Does all this mean that it was actually that Red Bull did not want him after all?

If Vettel clinches the WDC with races to spare, he will support Webber for a win. Or if running 1-2 will pull over for Webber to “give that Malaysian win back”. I have a feeling this Malaysia story may not be over!

If Vettel “gave the win” back to Webber, wonder how the masses would see it? As act of generousity? As a thank you to Webber? As an insult?

first of all, he is going to mathematically clinch it, with several to spare; can we agree on that one?
second, would he/could he, GIVE UP A WIN?????
what say you?
then, how do you think his (totally hypothetically) gifting a win to Webber?
Obvious, a la Schumy/Irvine?
Or subtle, like we don’t even know if it happened?

I don’t want Vettel to help Mark win. If you see/read what Mark has been saying in the media in the recent days, he is lambasting Vettel and also the team with a smiley face. This is the main cause for all these booing. He is still portraying him as an innocent victim.

The media is not helping by not asking the right questions. Mark is saying the team took his front wing and gave it to Vettel. But the media is not asking why he is crying over a front wing he didn’t want. He is talking about Multi-21. Why can’t the media ask him that he also ignored team orders many times and why he was not punished for that. These are just a few examples.

In contrast, Vettel has not said anything bad. So why should he move over? After all Mark is leaving and the damage is done. Even Rubens wasn’t so vocal about Schumi or Ferrari.

Webber doesn’t deserve any gifts from Vettel on track. But he can still win without Vettel’s help.

Valid points Rob. What is say is definately one of the likely interpretations. And say what you want, that Malaysia P1 was taken against team orders, but with a fair fight on the track. No one who’s serious believes Mark turned down the settings. I certainly don’t. Otherwise, it wouldn’t have taken that long to make the pass.

Anyhow, the reason why I was thinking that Vettel would “give the win” back is just to shut people up, and in a way to pay back Mark for being a decent #2. After all, even Schumi “let” Rubens win a few as pay-back. No?

I cant see Webber going for that, he’s not about taking it off a plate; even for what went down in Malaysia. I have a lot of respect for Webber, he’s fair, square & a down to earth Ausi and will be missed by the sport next year.

You’re right Goerge. I think it’s not in Webber’s character to pick up scraps. But I think the whole thing can be engineered in a way to not look like scraps being handed willingly by Vettel over to Webber.

Look at my post above “predicting” a Vettel DNF to stretch the WDC fight and keep the TV ratings up. It would be a perfect scenario for RBR to have Vettel-Webber run 1-2, then have an “alternator problem” on #1 car, let Webber take the win, bring the championship closer and streetch it out, etc. This scenario kills so many birds with one stone, it may just happen.

Probably not an alternator, it would have to be a newer problem, but not unrelated. Fuel pickup, perhaps? SV’s as hard on his brakes as MW is generally on his tires, so brake problems? If they did manufacture a win for MW, and I disagree that they should (and I’m Australian, a MW fan, and don’t particularly like SV – there, I’ve said it!), then it needs to correlate to similar issues SV has experienced during the year. What was it in Brazil 2011? Oil pressure or something? With no collaborating telemetry? As others have said, it was pretty much a reward for being a ‘good boy’. I disagree with giftings regardless of whoever the gifter and the recipient are. If SV is in a position to win with MW right behind and there’s no problems with either car, then SV should take the win. You’ll never get a chance to get those missed/gifted wins back, no matter what eventual career win record.

Vettel has given Webber a win before, Brazil 2011. So there is precedent for his doing so. Whether he’d feel like doing so again given Webbers behavior since then? I doubt it. Of course Webber would have to be running second to Vettel in a race after Vettel has won the WDC for this scenario even to be possible, which means that Alonso would probably also have to move over and let Webber past him.

Seems logical that all teams focus is on 2014, since RB is running away with this year’s championship.
For the rest of 2013, I doubt there will be any more surprises. Unless naughty Pirelli decides on some ridiculous tyres.

Redbull might be less prepared with 2014. Merc and Ferrari which have in-house powertrain development might have advantage if they can develop efficiently.

I think Merc could be the strongest since they started last year acquiring the best people at high pricetag.
Ferrari is reacting to Merc’s move with James Allison and Kimi Raikkonen.
Both of them are trying to out-do the RedBulls.

If RedBull fail to win championship next year, I won’t be all that surprise. If RB manage to hang on and still wins, the taste of their win will be even sweeter.

That’s my forecast and yes, I really look forward to next year (except the V6 engine sound).

I just read a great feature by Autosports Edd Straw: “Ferrari must take blame for 2013 failures”, which states that tires is far from the only explanation to the difference between Spain in May and Singapore in September.

What is the most significant element in Red Bull-Vettel being so dominant in this part of the season.

a) The midseason change to Pirelli tires, which clearly is better for Red Bull.

b) Vettel improving from an already high level of skills (being much faster than his teammate)

I’m not James, but I’ll make a few observations:
1: Edd’s comparison of lap times is flawed. When several qualifying sessions are rain affected, the fastest times then to come from irrelevant sessions. The fastest race lap is similar – average pace of a stint is more relevant, but not always visible due to traffic and as Guiterrez showed in Spain, if you stop for tyres late in the race there is an immediate advantage right there.
2: Edd’s comment on the percentage of points Alonso had relative to Vettel 84% going down to 76% ignores the points thrown away by Ferrari in Malaysia and Bahrain and Vettel’s DNF while leading in the UK.
3: as with last year, all the teams are learning how to exploit the tyres as the season goes along. There were suggestions that Red Bull were initially holding back the total downforce the cars could make to look after the tyres and this helped give Mercedes an edge in qualifying.
4: The easiest way to win a race is to qualify the fastest race car on pole position. Anything else has limitations.
5: Ricciardo has said Webber told him that Vettel keeps finding ways to improve.

The original design of the RB9 is better than the Ferrari. Your point (a) allows point (c) to be exploited to the maximum. Your point (b) might win an additional race over a season, but there really isn’t much difference between now and Vettel’s streak of four in the run home last year.

I sometimes thinks, that F1 is basically such a marginal sport, that it makes one look for very special explanations to what in truth is small differences.

Even in Singapore, where Vettel-Red Bull in F1-terms was extremely in control and dominating, the difference between Vettel and Alonso after racing 1.59.13 hours, is 32 sec’s, which equals Vettel doing 100%, and Alonso 99,55%

I was standing at turn 11/12 for both the GP2 race and the F1 race. The GP2 guys – mostly mid-field runners – pulled off maybe 6 or 7 passes there by going round the outside at turn 10 (throwing up a cloud of dust) and then making it stick through the inside of turn 11.

The F1 guys followed each other nose to tail for 61 tedious laps – I didn’t see a single pass through that complex.

Why the difference? One contributing factor may be that the F1 tyres drop a lot more marbles over the course of the longer race so going off line is riskier. But this isn’t much of a factor in the early laps and the discrepancy still seems a bit mysterious.

In my book what you describe is exactly all that is wrong with F1.
There is TOO much focus on grip from AERO and too little from MECHANICAL grip. This causes more problems when going off-line and causes problems getting close in the first place.

Part of the reason started with why we moved to grooved tyres to to REDUCE mechancial grip (and hence mid-corner speed) in the wake of Senna.

If I’m Mercedes, I would have split the strategies. That’s the benefit of having two drivers who are competitive in the race: you can split the strategies, and chances are one of them are going to come out with a top result.

If they were concerned about tire wear, they should have kept the driver who was ahead- Rosberg- on the track and put him on the conservative strategy to mark the leader. They should have brought in Hamilton- the driver behind- to mark Alonso, Grosjean, the McLarens, and Raikkonen. Maybe the cars who stop have their tires completely fall off and they fade away, and Rosberg takes second. Maybe Hamilton makes the tires last, gets by Grosjean when his car fails, and he grabs the podium.